Las Vegas East? When is the razing scheduled for, Governor?

With more flair than a traveling road act, Gov. Chris Christie stood on the 50-yard line of the New Meadowlands Stadium today and declared the state government’s long romance with horse racing dead.

“I don’t have the money to subsidize failure,” he said, summarizing the findings of a special commission which has concluded the state’s long financial support of horse racing has had its day. It’s a river of red ink and can’t be saved.

A helicopter ride later, he stood on the boardwalk in Atlantic City and pledged to take over the faltering casino district and turn the city into “Las Vegas East.” Flanked by the mayor and city council he side-stepped the part of the commission findings that called Atlantic City corrupt and portrayed it as incredibly inept. He said the changes his commission proposes are needed by this time next summer.

“Delay will lead to demise,” the governor said.

The day had the feel of a major public relations blitz, aimed at stoking support for one of the boldest moves to come out of the statehouse in years. In some parts of the political landscape it seemed to be working.

Sales of U.S. previously owned homes probably fell in June for a second month, adding to evidence the market will slump as the effects of a government tax credit fade, economists said before a report today.

Purchases dropped 9.9 percent from May to a 5.1 million annual rate, according to the median of 74 forecasts in a Bloomberg News survey. Other reports may show the outlook for economic growth cooled and claims for jobless benefits rose.

Cape May Report: We come here every year. Stay in the same place. The European kids that did most of the grunt work have been replaced with Mexican/south Americans. The crowds are pretty good here. Lots of street traffic. Life is good for the employed and semi-affluent.

One thing I would like to see in Las vegas east is,make a Port stop for the luxury cruises.That can bring in revenue to the city.Bahamas style.Atlantis with more choices.
Don’t compete for locals from New York and Phillie just tourist forced to stop in AC.Bring manufacturing back to the area,with the port,shipping will be a plus.

Christie. Typical Republican. If he ‘sees value’ in something he will invest in it. You always see them show their hand. Just like a liberal / progressive will throw money at pre K kid care, the GOP is always happy to make their mark helping free the citizenry from their dollars in the form of subsidizing corporate welfare.

The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50% — to 15% from 10%. The next lowest bracket — 25% — will rise to 28%, and the old 28% bracket will be 31%. At the higher end, the 33% bracket is pushed to 36% and the 35% bracket becomes 39.6%.

If we complain about 40% of Americans don’t pay federal tax for being classified as poor,this is a good thing.Everybody pay their fair share.The rich are paying 5% more on capital gains at 20% which is where most their income comes from.Dividend at 35% is fair.Get off the weight on the middle class.40% don’t pay federal taxes.20% is the top earners who gets a good deal on capital gains and dividends.The 40% middle class carries all the load.

-The gold market is selling on average 45 ounces of gold for every one ounce of real physical gold via “unallocated gold” (fractional reserve bullion banking). In other words the gold market is backed by only 2.3% gold.

-The true price of physical gold is currently around $54,000/oz if fractional reserve bullion banking did not exist. In the presence of fractional reserve banking with 2.3% gold backing the market price of “gold” is reduced to $1200/oz.

-The US dollar has a purchasing power that is 45 times over valued.

-The way to end gold price suppression is for investors to ensure they have allocated physical bullion preferably held outside of the bullion banking system.

The solution? Buy physical – “The sick joke of the Gold cartel is that whether you hold dollars or unallocated gold you only have 2.3% of gold backing! However, the trade of the century is to buy actual physical metal with your dollars, or if you have unallocated gold to demand physical delivery. In this way you can trade something with 2.3% gold backing for an investment that is 100% gold.”

Main article: Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration
Facing opposition in Congress, Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the U.S. in 2001 to increase public support for his plan for a $1.35 trillion tax cut program—one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history.[51] Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying “the surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money.”[51] With reports of the threat of recession from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs.[90] Others, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O’Neill, were opposed to some of the tax cuts on the basis that they would contribute to budget deficits and undermine Social Security.[91] By 2003, the economy showed signs of improvement, though job growth remained stagnant.[51]

Under the Bush Administration, real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%,[92] considerably below the average for business cycles from 1949 to 2000.[93][94] Bush entered office with the Dow Jones Industrial Average at 10,587, and the average peaked in October 2007 at over 14,000. When Bush left office, the average was at 7,949, one of the lowest levels of his presidency.[95] Unemployment originally rose from 4.2% in January 2001 to 6.3% in June 2003, but subsequently dropped to 4.5% as of July 2007.[96] Adjusted for inflation, median household income dropped by $1,175 between 2000 and 2007,[97] while Professor Ken Homa of Georgetown University has noted that “after-tax median household income increased by 2%”[98] The poverty rate increased from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.3% in 2006 after peaking at 12.7% in 2004.[99] By October 2008, due to increases in domestic and foreign spending,[100] the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion,[101][102] an increase of over 100% from the start of the year 2000 when the debt was $5.6 trillion.[103][104] By the end of Bush’s presidency, unemployment climbed to 7.2%.[105] The perception of Bush’s effect on the economy is significantly affected by partisanship.[106]

In December 2007, the United States entered the longest post-World War II recession,[14] which included a housing market correction, a subprime mortgage crisis, soaring oil prices, and a declining dollar value.[107] In February, 63,000 jobs were lost, a five-year record.[108][109] To aid with the situation, Bush signed a $170 billion economic stimulus package which was intended to improve the economic situation by sending tax rebate checks to many Americans and providing tax breaks for struggling businesses. The Bush administration pushed for significantly increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003,[110] and after two years, the regulations passed the House but died in the Senate. Many Republican senators, as well as influential members of the Bush Administration, feared that the agency created by these regulations would merely be mimicking the private sector’s risky practices.[111][112] In September 2008, the crisis became much more serious beginning with the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac followed by the collapse of Lehman Brothers[113] and a federal bailout of American International Group for $85 billion.[114]

Many economists and world governments determined that the situation became the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.[115][116] Additional regulation over the housing market would have been beneficial, according to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.[117] Bush, meanwhile, proposed a financial rescue plan to buy back a large portion of the U.S. mortgage market.[118] Vince Reinhardt, a former Federal Reserve economist now at the American Enterprise Institute, said “it would have helped for the Bush administration to empower the folks at Treasury and the Federal Reserve and the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC to look at these issues more closely”, and additionally, that it would have helped “for Congress to have held hearings”.[112]

In November 2008, over 500,000 jobs were lost, which marked the largest loss of jobs in the United States in 34 years.[119] The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the last four months of 2008, 1.9 million jobs were lost.[120] By the end of 2008, the U.S. had lost a total of 2.6 million jobs

There will be a few Rockefellers made when it hits the fan, the question is, will the government be able to lop them off at the knees, because you know they will try. If a few Rockefellers can make it out of that trade alive they represent a serious threat to TPTB. That is unless they could be bought off.

“The raging debate over the Baltic Dry Index is starting to feel like the Jansenists debate with the Ultramontanists with the Big Media playing the enforcement role of Pope Innocent X against heretical bloggers such as Zero Hedge.”

Assuming that an equivalent percentage of children from each family are equally educated and become productive, tax-paying citizens or eventually reproduce productive, tax-paying citizens, what is the net present value of having ten children produce, versus two. The educational costs pale in comparison to the eventual income streams of the eight additional rugrats.

I realize that I’m a little biased, coming from a family of ten, but the taxes the ten of us have paid over the years probably paid for many, many parking lots for you to use.

y understanding is that the brackets are not moving, only the rates at which each bracket is being taxed, hence it does not change anything in terms of the 40%. Even if they move the brackets its the huge number of exemptions that generate much of that 40%.

The answer is a flat tax structure. Remove the loop holes for everyone. It wont happen though as it would remove politicians favorite tool for both politician favors and for social manipulation.
A flat tax structure destroys any ability to use the tax structure as a carrot&stick for social behaviors (a good thing in my opinion), which it is currently very much used for at this time.

The educational costs pale in comparison to the eventual income streams of the eight additional rugrats.

You seem to be missing a whole host of other factors. Zoom out and consider the bigger picture. The nation as a whole as do most nations as the progresses, is seeing a inflection approaching a net negative replacement rate. In such a situation more children per family is a net cost to the society int he long run. The way western societies are currently structured the younger population essentially subsidizes the older population. Any net increase in revenue to the state is temporary as the net cost to the state and society as whole can be substantial in they live to and beyond the average lifespan for their demographic.

Besides any of that the concept of even trying to analyze the benefits&costs of children in terms of revenue streams to the state only makes sense if you are planning on a chinese like economy where the individual is subservient to the state for the benefit of the state. This model is purely parasitic on the productivity of the individual.

if the goal is the best relative outcome for the majority of society then the question is about available resources for the individuals not revenue streams. For this point of view, a flat or slightly negative population growth is desirable as in such an environment you should a net net increase in the resources available to each individual over time. Regardless of how much of ones potential each individual in a society uses, the more more resources available the better the overall outcome. This sort of scenario is essentially symbiotic between the society and the individual.

granted we are currently much closer to the parasitic scenario in our society but have been close to the symbiotic scenario in the past. Corporatism,m is also a big factor as corporatism essentially demands a parasitic model.

These are the people my neighbors elected. It’s no wonder we need a $3500 facilitator to teach them all how to get along.

The free ($4.1 million) public library

There was no love on display for the Bloomfield Public Library at last week’s Montclair Township Council meeting.

During a discussion of municipal funding for the Montclair Free Public Library, 2nd Ward Councilman Cary Africk asked why Bloomfield’s library can operate on $1.8 million annually, while Montclair’s – which serves a smaller population – originally proposed a 2010 budget topping $4 million.

The Montclair Township Council postponed a taxpayer-funded $3,500 “council retreat” one day after a local resident accused the council of using it to discuss official business without the public’s involvement.

The retreat was tacked on the end of the agenda for the council’s July 20 meeting. The council intended to hold its retreat behind closed doors.

Municipal officials claim the retreat was just an attempt to get council members to work better together, but a copy of a July 9 memo sent to council members by the independent consultant hired to facilitate the retreat reveals otherwise.

The memo, obtained by The Times by an unnamed source after municipal officials refused to make it public, calls the retreat a “goal-setting meeting … to develop a short list of high-priority goals on which the township … can focus their efforts for the good of the community.”

In the memo, the consultant – Reagan Burkholder, of Summit Collaborative Advisors – asks council members to attend the retreat with a list of the “five biggest issues facing the township.”

“We will review which issues were chosen most often, and we will attempt to reach consensus on the ones that will be chosen as the governing body’s goals,” Burkholder writes.

Such a major revision to the Sacred Tax Code would be impossible to accomplish. The PACs and lobbyists would paper Pennsylvania Avenue with dollars and other such non-traceable considerations as to make your head spin.

Can you imagine trying to repeal (or even reduce) the Mortgage Deduction….NAR and NAMB (mort brokers) and NAHB(home builders) would camp outside the Congressional Office Building with suitcases full of cash. Try to Change the Cap Gains treatment and you would have every brokerage house, investment bank, and penny-ante hedge fund operator storming the Bastille. Not to mention, Congress is loaded with high earners who hold these deductions dear to their calloused hearts.

To paraphrase Al Swearingen of Deadwood “I’d sooner try touching the moon than to take on any of these deductions”

Hyde 44 – Exactly. This was the same councilwoman who said people would die if we raised the pool fees $5, because it would be embarrassing for poor people to ask for a free pass (which the town would happily give them).

When some middle class folks complained about the tax burden in town, she essentially told them if they couldn’t afford Montclair, then they should leave.

By the way – re 43, the “retreat” was postponed because several of the council memeber did not even bother to fill out the questionaire, after agreeing to pay $3500 for this illegal, closed door “retreat”.

Lets be blunt about it then. Tax credits subsidize children that people might otherwise not be able to afford. The net effect is to promote birth rates ( the whole societal carrot&stick through the tax code). if you remove that artificial incentive to have children you will see a net decrease in birth rates ( albeit how much or little, i have no idea). This decrease is like to be most prevalent amongst the lower middle class and the poor.

You can make a perfectly logical argument that such a tax break causes a net cost int he long run because you will now incentivises people to have children when they perhaps could not afford/ did not have the resources to reasonably do so before hand. Of course the tax break actually does little to cover the costs of supporting and raising a child, by the psychological effect is there and hence the effect takes hold.

The tax break is great if your purpose is to juice the birth rate because in such a situation you are more then likely willing to accept the added long run costs that such a policy may have. In the case of the US in the 1800′s, growth policies that increase birth rates would probably have a net positive effect as there was ample room for expansion without limiting resources. The case is very different now and expansionist/growth policies are more likely to have a net cost as opposed to a net benefit.

All Hype – Funny thing about the Bloomfield library, is everyone I know loves it. And I hear their book selection is better than ours. People oftem find books there that they can’t get in the fabulous town of Montclair.

Montclair does have a busy library. Every time I drive past it there are alot of cars parked in front and people going in and out. It’s just that the public workers thinks that the library is Harvard University and that the good people of Montclair are able to give them millions upon millions of dollars of endowments and grants to keep them in their cushy jobs.

The nation’s three dominant credit-ratings providers have made an urgent new request of their clients: Please don’t use our credit ratings.
The odd plea is emerging as the first consequence of the financial overhaul that is to be signed into law by President Obama on Wednesday. And it already is creating havoc in the bond markets, parts of which are shutting down in response to the request.
Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings are all refusing to allow their ratings to be used in documentation for new bond sales, each said in statements in recent days.

The point is that the Republicans are just as evil as the Democrats if not more so. Obama’s a multi-millionaire himself and is glad to set the exemption for estate tax at $4.5 million. I’ve got no problem with this. For the super-wealthy to get super-wealthier is bad for everyone’s interests. The country is becoming rapidly polarized with no middle class. I know which side all of us reading this blog will be on in the end, regardless of what we may want to believe about how smart we are.

But instead, the Republicans are making noise about wanting to raise the exemption or better yet do away with it entirely. I call bull. Take O.’s deal and walk away. Instead they stand in the way so that come fall they can say that the Democrats are going to tax us all to high heaven.

It’s like Christie. I am glad he is making these cuts. He needs to. No question. But he also needs to tax the mega-rich and forget about crap like rebuilding Atlantic City as “Boss City” or whatever god forsaken idea shot into his skull after one tipple too many.

These cretins. Ever see idiocracy? I watched it the other day. Back in the 90s Ridley Scott said if he was making Blade Runner again he would just need to point the camera down the street, forget all the special effects. I think the same could be said about idiocracy today.

Still, that’s enough for any family to pass on a decent house and even a small inheritance to the kiddies, should they mom & dad been greedy enough to hang on to every penny and not transfer it on using annual gifts.

…should they mom & dad been greedy enough to hang on to every penny and not transfer it on using annual gifts.

And if mom and dad got hit by a bus crossing the street at 66 yrs old, and didn’t have sufficient “annuals” to accomplish the intended tax avoidance, well, just f*#k em then, right? I suppose if they were less greedy they wouldn’t have gotten hit by that bus.

From a few studies i have read recently ( sorry no links) inheritance is not usually how the big fortunes get made. Look at bill gates, warren buffet, etc. From what i have read, more often then not inheritance is blown by the kids who receive it.

a more central question; what right does the government have to take money that was legitimately earned? what right do they have to determine who should receive the money that was already taxed multiple times.

What happens to retirement and pension plans now that the ratings agencies are refusing to issue ratings and state/federal laws require any bonds offered in pension/retirement plans to carry certain ratings? What happens to all of those municipal bonds that states like NJ are selling by the boatload if they cant get a rating?

Due to FINREG making the ratings agencies legally liable for their ratings, I could imagine that a large % of towns across the US may suddenly lose access to a substaial portion of the funding the thought they had.

Cape May business is off, My parents have a place down there and I have been there almost every weekend this summer. Yes many people still come, yes hotels are fairly busy but, there is vacancy which is odd, typically in past summers even during the week hotels were mostly filled. Also the more expensive restaurants are pretty empty on a saturday, sure the lobster house is packed as are the other middle market restaurants but those that are $30-$40 a plate are not all that busy. Cape May is a great spot to visit on the Jersey Shore and thus will continue to see traffic, the traffic just isn’t spending what they used to. Charter fishing(Thousands per trip) offshore is hurting, as is anything that is moderately expensive.

Those who are relying on an inheritance or plan to leave one are only hurting themselves and their offspring. I plan to spend every dollar I’ve made on myself in retirement, just like my folks plan to. If Gator Jr. grows up to be a d1ck, I’ll leave him some debt too. Then again, being the youngest of seven wouldn’t yield me much anyhow.

jcer…same can be said for AC. Vacancy rates are lower than last Summer, but people just ain’t gambling. The beach there has become a popular diversion to gambling when in the past it was an afterthought. It’s amazing to me how the hotels are often overbooked, yet the restaurants inside of them are rarely open. Perhaps visitors are finally realizing that the $20 cr@p breakfast all these casinos offer is a terrible value.

re #66 Hyde- Other Bond issues like government debt Munis etc may not be affected, but don’t think that the rating agencies aren’t going to play hardball on this. The new FINREG changes are apparently on applicable to structured finance where the collateral consists of consumer loans, such as residential mortgages, auto loans, student loans and credit card receivables, all the junk bonds that they are already being sued for now.

Rating agencies will wait for a court ruling that they cannot be held liable. They already have a near perfect litigation record, and if they cannot get insulation from lawsuits then the cost of their ratings will simply go sky high to include a risk premium.

The index of leading economic indicators fell 0.2 percent in June and, excluding the interest rate spread, would have fallen a rounded 0.6 percent. The rate spread, exaggerated by near zero rates on the front end, has been holding this index up throughout the recovery.

The factory workweek was the single biggest negative for the report followed by vendor performance. These are two readings hinting at trouble for the manufacturing sector, the sector that has been leading the economy out of recession. The stock market was also a negative as were unemployment claims.

The index of coincident economic indicators also shows trouble, unchanged in June following a run of gains. Today’s report echoes Ben Bernanke’s sound bite yesterday warning that the economic outlook is “unusually uncertain.”

68. I always wondered about Charter Fishing business. The smartest guy here is the dude with the closet next to a big hotel where he sells kick ass hot dogs. I could do that in retirement. Spend four hours a day maybe manning the shop and the rest skiing Chamonix. I am fine with that.

75, they are hurting, lots of boats for sale, high fuel costs, high prices for trips, slow economy, and pretty poor fishing is killing that business. Especially in NJ where a canyon trip is easily 300 gallons of diesel, $150+ worth of bait, a boat worth north of 500k, massive slip rental costs, high insurance, maintenance costs, and the need for an experienced, skilled crew. It is nearly impossible to make money at, even at 5k per trip if they are not consistently booked. The guys running the smaller efficient boats inshore that can be run by one guy do better.

My sister just sold her home in Indiana. Second buy / sell transaction from them in two years. We all breathed a sigh of relief. A nice place and the upgrades/improvements they made caught the interest of buyers. They even made money. Go figger.

I generally agree, but its not about the kids — its about the government taking it when you die. The money usually goes to the kids (for better or for worse) because that’s what the dead guy wanted — its his money/stuff. The alternative view is that what you amass in your life is only on loan to you while you are alive, and it escheats to the government on your death, less whatever benevolence the overlord chooses to show.

I worked on a charter boat for a few years down in Puerto Rico. Captain Bill provided a unique experience in that deep see fishing was done off a 30 foot sailing catamaran. We could troll for marlin at 7 knots under sail. Upon hookup, the drill was drop the sails and start up the 15 hp kicker so we could manuevre properly to land the fish. This was about 7 years ago and half day trips were around $450. Unfortunately, the Hyatt in Dorado basically closed up and I’m driving a desk instead of a boat.

As a captain, I never owned a boat. Boat = a hole in the water you pour money into. It’s so true. I worked on fishing boats, dive boats, and dinner cruise boats. All lost money. And the owners had some other job or source of income to fuel their hobby.

Now I’m off to a meeting to explain to two VPs (not in my vertical) why I’m about a month behind in the implementation of an ISO quality program for our plant. Perhaps it has something to do with the second full-time management position I have been performing over the last six weeks. This will be fun. At least my direct supervisor is aware of the delay.

USA Today Goes off the Deep End on the Estate Tax
Wednesday, 21 July 2010 09:31
USA Today had a major story warning that middle-class families may be hit by the estate tax. It warns that people with estates of just a million will be subject to the tax if the law is not changed. The article never points out that the tax will only affect the amount of the estate over $1 million, nor does it mention that the exemption is per person, so that a couple can easily pass $2 million on to their heirs and escape all tax liability. In short, this article gave readers absolutely no idea of the issues involved and it is likely to make many people, who will at most be trivially affected by the estate tax, to believe that they face serious liability.

The article also bizarrely asserts that partisanship has prevented a resolution of the issue. This is not true as can be clearly seen from the evidence presented in the article. While most Republicans support lowering or elminating the estate tax, there are also some Democrats who have held out for lower rates. The article presents no evidence whatsoever that partisanship is preventing a resolution, as opposed to a conflict between people who want to pay lower taxes and others who want them to pay higher taxes.

Estate Tax: Can You Say “Marginal Rate?”
Wednesday, 21 July 2010 07:19
Market Place radio did a segment on the estate tax this morning and neglected to tell listeners that the tax is a marginal rate that only applies to the value of an estate above a cutoff. It also got the pre-Bush tax cut rate wrong.

Therefore when it told listeners that the estate tax will revert to the 2001 level next year if nothing is done, it likely left them hugely confused about the tax rate. The piece said that estates of more than $1 million would face a 55 percent tax rate. This would have led listeners to believe that an estate worth $1.1 million would face a tax liability of $605,000.

In fact, the first million would face no tax liability and the next $100,000 would be taxed at a 37 percent rate, making the total liability $37,000.

I suppose there’s no absolute way to tell. We’ve always had inheritance taxes so we can’t see if it builds dynasties. Still, I don’t want to live in a country ruled by the House of Lords, do you? And yes, kids are awfully good at blowing inheritances.

But as I’ve said before and I will say again (I am a broken record because we have a broken system) we have to raise taxes and cut spending. We have no choice. Both Republicans and Democrats don’t get both sides of the picture. None of those clowns want to actually govern constructively. So inheritance tax makes sense. By your own logic, let’s reward the people who work hard.

Don’t put the burden of taxation on the people generating income. It’s going to have to be on someone sometime. Would you rather your income tax be raised or that your kids are going to have to work? We’ve got enough hairy trust fund kiddies in Brooklyn for eternity. God forbid we have more.

Krugman is wrong: we’re like meth addicts. More stimulus is not going to help us anymore.

It’s either raise taxes AND cut spending or the US defaults. Take your pick. I’d rather take the former.

It’s either raise taxes AND cut spending or the US defaults. Take your pick. I’d rather take the former.

I prefer the later, default on China, abandon Globalism, make America self sufficient again. Old rules come back, US citizen must once again renounce other Countries and cannot hold multiple citizenship. Imagine the guy holding his hand on the Red Button also being a Citizen of the Enemy Country.

Well, heck, there are some points to that too, like ending this childish idea that we need to invade the world. Let the Israelis figure out their own mess. Like having children who endlessly bicker because Mommy and Daddy always makes it better by giving everyone a pony.

Man, those were the days. Today our military is bigger than all the rest of the world’s militaries put together. Lunatic neo-apocalypse Christians thinking we are God’s messengers.

Let’s remember folks, if pot was legal and we didn’t have an army, we wouldn’t need to defend our borders. Two oceans and a good solid fence or two would do.

My only annoyance about that scenario is that I’ve got a good bit of cold, hard cash and haven’t really run the numbers as to how protect it when the bond market collapses. Maybe I should just invest in plumbers. You always need plumbers.

Finally, let’s take a look at the Northeast. Bergen County is made up of fairly affluent communities which are located in northern New Jersey just west of the George Washington Bridge. Although home prices have dropped rather substantially since the peak, it has not been nearly as bad as in California or Florida.

RealtyTrac listed 615 repossessed properties as of July 16. Roughly 120 have been owned by the banks for more than a year without having been placed on the market. Two-thirds have been repossessed since the beginning of 2010.

Similar to the three other counties we have reviewed (Cooks, IL.; Miami Dade; Orange, CA) many of the foreclosed properties in Bergen County are expensive homes. More than 100 are listed on RealtyTrac for $500,000 and above. More than 350 of these homes are listed for at least $300,000.

Are the banks withholding most foreclosed properties from the market as banks have in the other three counties? Absolutely. On July 16, there were only 31 repossessed homes on the market. A total of four were listed higher than $300,000. That is four out of more than 350 foreclosed homes in Bergen County that are listed on RealtyTrac for more than $300,000.

House Whine (96)… sorry was typing as you were. Totally in agreement. Bad boy, no funny drone for you! You think the Al Qaeda would be in the US if we told Israel to go find another ally (imagine! they might have to turn to Germany, or Russia, or China for help)? No no.

Read Kevin Philips Bad Money. He says that the collapse of the US is a good thing in the long run. It’ll save our grandkids cash since we’ll pretty much give up the army just the way the Brits did. I’m all for it. It’s only that I’ve got two young spawn that I am not thrilled.

It’s either raise taxes AND cut spending or the US defaults. Take your pick. I’d rather take the former.
I agree. On inheretence, I was exploring the issue not stating an opinion. I am undecided on the matter

did you notice the “debt” calculator attached to the school loan article? It does not ask for car insurance payments, food, health care/dental costs above your monthly bill or amount taken out of your check, child care, older kid child care like 13 year olds that you can no longer use the flex spending for.., clothes, gas in your car etc. it makes everyone look good. That is unless they have some sort of wizard of oz calculation on the the back end, no pun there

I used to “first mate” on the Skylarker out of Belmar just for the cannon trips ,the owner used to work on Wall Street @ PWJ ,made his money bought his boat which eventually drove him to divorce ,and lose his boat …There is NO money to be made in fishing ,you better love to fish and eat fish as well

The time for creating “Las Vegas East” was 30 years ago. Now folks want convenient & new; gamblers from NY that are not riding the Old Fart Jitney do not want to sit in traffic on the Parkway for hours to gamble at the same old same old in that craphole known as AC. They already gladly drive to Yonkers or PA or DE for less travel time for newer gaming sites.

Slate today as a good article on Inheritance.http://www.slate.com/id/2261254/
.
With the Tax code all sides can cherry pick it to support their arguments. A lot of the fair/flat tax arguments will fall flat as grim states in #32 all income needs to be considered.

Will the flat tax proponents take a higher rate on capital gains if EITC is applied to everyone irrespective of income? Everyone gets the deduction so that’s fair. Everyone has the right to earn capital gains to be put up for taxation so that’s fair.

The ones shouting loudest for flat tax are those with the most income subject to tax in play.

Stu takes from AC and at worst breaks even over the long run. If you factor in the free rooms at the base of Heavenly in Tahoe during peak season, then Stu always wins. Stu knows the odds of the games and that Yonkers is a VLT (video lottery terminal) where your odds of winning are equal to that of a scratch card. Sadly Essex is right. One out of about 10,000 gamblers knows how to make it work for them. The other 9,999 are truly chumps. And I’m probably being overly generous.

What the slate op-ed (anything that partisan isn’t a news story) did not state, but put out there in so many words, is that our fiscal policy depends heavily on ‘the rich.’ Whether it is income taxes or estate taxes, if the rich don’t pay, we are screwed.

Agree or disagree as to the fairness, one must admit that building our edifice on the most unstable of foundations was a poor idea. Further, it is the unspoken collorary to the liberal shibboleth about wealth disparity increasing. It is, but so is tax disparity. And the reason that it is so bad is that a goodly portion of these taxes could be legally avoided in the future. They aren’t because the costs (financial and otherwise) are too high relative to the tax. But squeeze too hard, and you change that dynamic. Results will be predictable.

As for the estate tax, one need only look north for a system that most agree is much more fair than our own. Canadian bequests are treated as dispositions, triggering a tax that is the same as the capital gains tax.

But adopt Fabulous’ suggestions and we can expect to solve our wealth disparity problem through the simple expedient of demographic change. If they are no longer citizens, then there is less disparity.

Flat tax is a nonstarter. I don’t pay attention to flat tax arguments. Waste of oxygen.

VAT may be implemented because the politicians will tell the populace that this tax is imposed on corporations, and not on them. Sure, some in the media will point out that VAT will be passed through and raise the cost of the underlying products, but I expect that such “counterrevolutionary” thinking will be drowned out by the JournoList II crowd.

There, Nom has given you wisdom on the tax debate. You may rest easy in the knowledge that this is correct.

I would disagree. I think the foundation was sound at the start, but the additions that were added to the structure as the building grew was destabilized at the base with the tax avoidance undermining the foundation. So now we get a structure that does not look good, is difficult to move through and has been left unstabl.

Where this comes down to is that the upper layers of the tax base have the resources to fight to get more favorable terms were the lower levels do not.

Vat will be a disaster for this country as it is so open to fraud.
Yes you are right, the corporations pay nothing and pay it all forward to the consumer.
I think if the Canadians had a choice, they would reverse it.

I understand your point of flight of the high net worth, but balance that against the cost they will bear to stay here. On the corporate front, Halliburton may have moved to the middle East, but if they get shut of Gvmt contracts because of it, they will be straight back.

At the end of the day, the US is one of the biggest markets and companies can’t afford not to be here. It’s the ultimate legal Payola.

Those who are relying on an inheritance or plan to leave one are only hurting themselves and their offspring. I plan to spend every dollar I’ve made on myself in retirement, just like my folks plan to. If Gator Jr. grows up to be a d1ck, I’ll leave him some debt too. Then again, being the youngest of seven wouldn’t yield me much anyhow.

It’s one thing to say, “i plan to spend it all” but how can you? do you really see yourself at the age of 75 saying, “man, i have too much money, time to blow it on a high-end SVU!”

I got a kick out of that article. I lived at home. Only took out GSL (guaranteed student loan) and SLS (supplemental loans for students.) — the only low interest loans. I refused to get HEAL loans (they were at 18% at the time- no I am not kidding. this was 1989-1993)

I came out with $67K in loans that rapidly ballooned into $100K after forebearance (no payment, but interest added to principal) and deferment – no interest owed.

I lived in a miniscule 1 br apt that I rented for almost 10 yrs while I paid off that debt. Writing checks for $20K and $30K at a time.